Discussion in 'General' started by :: Phat ::, 28 Jul 2003.
^^ that's what I tell all my friends as well.
But they also use american built V8s... so...
415bhp Mustang with 500 lb/ft of torque will do a low 12 quarter and 0-60 in 4.7 seconds. Similar figures to a Audi RS4. Yes, the Audi manages this with a smaller engine, but it's also a smaller car. Nothing hooks up like a Muscle car with lots of unsprung weight at the back Besides... nothing SOUNDS like a big American V8 either and that's what Muscle cars are about. Think about it... it's a different market. I'm sure the Americans could make a smaller engine with more power... they have after all just remote landed a spaceship on Mars. Manufacturers tend to make cars that people want after all. The minute you try to go up against European cars in the same market, it will stop being a muscle car.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Mustang will be doing in 2015.. coming to Europe. It will be the end of the Mustang as we know it.
american cars have always had pitiful HP/displacement ratios. there was a point in the 70's when you could buy a genuine 302-powered mustang "muscle car" that wheezed out a pitiful 175 HP. europeans were getting that out of 2 liter 4 cylinders around the same time.
pretty much the only thing muscle cars are good for is the sound. there are far more effective ways of going fast even if youre only going in a straight line (ways that can also do advanced maneuvers such as turning, stopping, and going over bumps without jarring the teeth out of your skull).
if it makes you feel any better pookey, rumor has it we might be getting the european ford ranger over here (and with the fords recent influx of european models to the states, id believe it). with any luck we will get a diesel option with it which would be a nice change from the bargain basement engines the rangers built here have had. i love the ranger but all the motors leave something to be desired in the technology department.
It won't make me feel any better. I don't want the Mustang as an official import, or this cross market platform sharing. It will become a homogenised blend of European styling with that silly Ecoboost engine in it. Even if you can buy a version with the Coyote in it it will be just another car over here. Oh well.. at least I'll have a proper one and not the silly fake one... assuming I keep it at all.
Like I said.. you either get it or you don't. No point arguing about it.
The 175bhp was probably the Mustang II... which as you know was a "fuel Crisis" car. No one wants to remember the Mustang II May I also remind you that the Q and R code mustangs of 69 and 70 were putting out 340BHP and over 450lb/ft of torque, which was far in excess of pretty much everything Europe was mass producing at the time.
Muscle cars are REALLY like Marmite.
I personally have a masssive weak spot for them, and if there was any way (short of spending a million NAD - round about 80k GBP for one), I'd give my left nut, and possibly parts of the right one too, to have a Boss 302. In blue, thankyouverymuch.
My mate always laughs about it and asks me if I like stopping as much as I like accelerating (a play on the brake failure that a current Boss 302 had with some publication)... I ignore him. Smile and wave.
Some people just don't get it. They also don't understand how I am willing to spend 40K on a 20 year old Honda (NSX).
I say 40K but... if need be, I'll go up to 60K for an NA2 (2002-2005)
The whole thing about cars is that they're largely personal.
For most people, a car is a method to get from A to B. Preferably safely. If it can do it quickly and while looking good, that's a bonus.
For some people. cars are about more. There's a "soul" in a car that's very hard to put into words. It's beyond speed, beyond numbers, and lodged somewhere in the stomach.
American muscle falls into that category. They aren't the quickest 'round the block. They may not be the prettiest. They may not even sound as good (subjective, I know) as a Ferrari. But they sure as hell make the driver smile.
It's the same with the little Toyota I am so in love with (what you Europeans know as the GT86, also known as the Scion FRS or the Subaru BRZ). It gets it's arse whooped by almost anything that's quick-ish. Any hot hatch can outrun it, and probably has a better interior to boot. It's impractical. It competes in a segment (except for in price) where EVERYTHING is quicker, more luxurious and possibly "cooler". And still - when I drove it, I realized that that's proabbly the car I want more than anything right now. If I had to chose between that and a 458, I'd go with the 458 ONLY because I promsied myself I'd own a Ferrari one day.
People don't understand "soul" or "passion". Because it can't be quantified. It's 100% subjective.
Had a nice drive in my brother in laws Audi S5 at the weekend - puts my S3 firmly in it's place!
as an american who is tired of seeing US manufacturers churn out 1950's technology in 2012, im a bit excited for this. i hope it means new and interesting things for the cars on our roads. i can see how someone on the other end would be less than thrilled though.
no arguing, just discussion. ive long since given up trying to convince you otherwise
ahh i forgot about the mustang II! the 302 in THAT made even less than the mustang. but no, i was referring to the "full size" mustang. in the early 70's, with the formation of the EPA and resulting regulations combined with the fuel crunch, all manufacturers were de-tuning their cars (lower compression ratios, retarded timing, redesigned cylinder heads, etc) for fuel economy and smog reasons. pretty much anything sold in the US in the 1970's was severely anemic.
it also took them 7 liters to do it! and keep in mind that pre '72 numbers are often gross HP ratings. that 340hp at the crankshaft ends up being closer to 208-225 at the wheels dependent on year.
Most published figures for cars are not HP at the wheels. I've never seen a manufacturer quote horse power at the wheels figures for their cars.
derp! youre right!
but there was a switch from SAE gross to SAE net in '72...although i guess the difference between the two would be smaller on a pre-smog '69 or '70 motor.
new track day 'fix it again tony'
20V? If so good luck with the timing belt
Someone else's, but mine's the same year. Micra 1.2 SX. Yes, it suffers from (I'm pretty sure) the common stretched timing chain. Lumpy idle, cuts out when pulling up to junctions. Bloody nightmare, but it's mine and I like its kooky shape. I'd love an exact same one that worked 100%. It's not too bad to get a new timing chain kit, it's just getting it replaced as it's not an insignificant amount of work, involving complete removal of engine and gearbox. Typical Renault.
Tis a Nissan...
My housemates don't get how I'm willing to spend £2k on a hardtop for my 20 year old Honda.
This should be reason enough for anyone. (Thinking about it, it still probably isn't worth it)
I drive a 1.6 Proton Gen 2 GSX. I love it, technically my 2nd one as the first one had a few mech faults...
So much better than my '98 1 Ltr Micra!
Timing belt is not an issue, can be done in situ contrary to popular belief and is no more expensive than your average family motor.
Great cars, thought about one again as a track thing due to its power but the temptation to throw money at it for big power would be to strong for me
It might have a Nissan badge, but it's a Renault.
Separate names with a comma.